Why you would want to continue to post on the subject of nuclear power when
don't not what you are talking about seems rather strange at best. For one
to even suggests nuclear power plants lead to birth defects is absurd.
mike hunt
wrote:

Why do you want to cover up or ignore the hazards of nuclear power?
Perhaps you are not willing to admit to the hazards, preferring to
ignore them in a rush for more power at any price; at any risk?
That ignores everything science and medicine have learned over decades
about the dangers of exposure to radiation and what it does to cells.
It ignores what the Russians have experience as a result of a failure
to contain it. It ignores acknowledged leakage into the ground water
systems in our own country from the storage of the waste.
The plants themselves do not lead to birth defects, death, etc. But,
when there is a failure of the containment system, a price is paid.
You are pro nuke. Fine. I happen to be pro nuke as well because it
happens to be the only thing which will, for the foreseeable future,
help meet the needs of the globe. Where we differ in recognizing the
hazards.
I don't recall having told you that because you do not agree with me
you should shut up on the subject. Nor have I intentionally, and I
hope not even accidentally, indicated that you are stupid and know
nothing about the subject, as you have inferred about me. I don't know
about you, but i have had to wear the suit and detector badges, and
scrub down. I've spent hours in the classroom being trained for such
events. I think I have some knowledge of the subject.

I merely suggest you might want to stop posting on this subject since you
opinion about nuclear power is not based on facts..You may know much about
nuclear radiation but you know little about the operation of a US nuclear
power generating plant, with your wrong headed efforts to connect the two.
Disposal of nuclear waste from a power station is indeed a political
problem, but it is not a scientific problem If you knew how the pellets
are handled after they have served their purpose, you would know that.
Your equating nuclear power, as used in a US power generating station, with
fusion is ridicules. There could not be a nuclear explosion in a power
plant if one wanted to cause one. You are simply adding to the nuclear
hysteria in this country buy posting such crap in a NG. With every post you
prove you do not know anything about nuclear power as used to produced
electricity in the US, or the storage and disposal of the used material.
If you want to know about the safe use of nuclear power, talk to a US
sailor. Every submarine and carrier is nuclear steam powered and has been
for many years. Talk to the thousands of people that go to work every day
in nuclear power plants in the US, France or Japan where the used material
is now stored under six foot of water and ask them if they are afraid to go
to work. My one son is the Manager of a nuclear power plant, when I showed
him some of your posts he just shook his head and said, I know we have been
fighting a grossly ill-informed public for years over thirty.
mike hunt
wrote:

If you don't know that nuclear power is used to make the steam to runs a
ships turbine engines, and the turbine that runs the generators in a power
station, there is no use trying to teach you anything LOL
mike hunt

And if you don't know the hazards of that propulsion system, talk to
the widows and orphans from the submarine Kirsk. And ask any
submariner in the US Navy. Ask those who tend those propulsion systems
on ships. It may not go wrong often, but when it does it goes very
very wrong. Radiation is radiation. It is bad for your health.
Consider the use of radiation in the treatment of cancer. The
radiation does not pick and choose which cells to destroy. It destroys
them all. The question is always whether it gets rid of the cancer
before it kills the patient. You just proved your ignorance. There is
nothing more to say.

Clearly you concentrate on the cause and ignore the fears of the
reactor leaking and contaminating the ocean. That is what it has to do
with it. The explosion could have led to radiation leakage.

By that, we can infer that the atom bombs dropped on Japan prevented
added deaths so it was a good thing?

I note that you do not deny that it kills good cells as well as bad. I
don't recall at any point indicating that it kills one faster than the
other. As for whether it kills the cancer first or the patient, talk
to a cancer specialist. Chemo is the same.

It seems you don't know any more about submarines then you know about
nuclear power in the US. The Kirsk was not a US submarine and its lost was
a result of the mishandling of one of it own torpedoes, not from a failure
of its reactor.
mike hunt
wrote:

Sorry, but that was a rather idiotic retort. What the heck difference
does the nation of origin matter? It's still a nuclear reactor heating
water to make steam to drive turbines to create electricity to propel
the boat.
While you have concentrated on the accident cause, you have ignored
the grave concern of many nations in the region regarding
contamination of the ocean. Both the US and Russians have had
accidents, and losses with nuclear powered subs; the Russians far more
than we. Among those have been reactor leaks which resulted in both
death and long term illness. I expect you will ignore them as well.
However, I do enjoy the way you take things out of context and twist
them to negate anything which conflicts with your "expert" views, and
to cover what appears to be a serious lack of knowledge on your part.
Aside from experience by way the military, I have experience through
contacts while doing volunteer work in a hospice and rehab hospital.
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:05:41 -0400, "Mike Hunter"

You mean those things which cause such worries in Australia, and
Canada? The same reason that environmentalists are so dead set
against sending the waste materials to the sun because of the
possibility of an accident?

Thank you. Apparently Michael is not as familiar with the history of
the nuclear power developments and both it's successes and failures.
I am not against nuclear power. If it goes wrong, we'll all glow
together when we glow :0) Hopefully, sometime in the future, a new
source which does not have the side effects of nuclear fission will be
developed/harnessed.
Personally, I would lean more toward reducing the need for more power.
That is, if the globe had far fewer people, there would be far less
need for the resources being depleted. Population control is, in my
opinion, a far more serious problem than more power production.
At the rate they are increasing the populations of India and China,
the earth is going to fall over sideways from the excess weight on
that side of the globe. The we'll all have to go buy new wardrobes to
meet the needs of the climate change LOL

Log in

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.